Originally Posted by Inertia

Animals have sex, they masturbate... what are you wanting sources for exactly?

Do you not believe they have sex?
Do you not believe that they masturbate?
Do you believe that they have sex but they don't want to do it?
Do you believe that they masturbate and not want to do it?

Umm no. I believe we were having a discussion about dog humping behaviour, so I don't know where that got translated into the whole animal kingdom but hey ho.

Originally Posted by Inertia

I'm a little lost here.

If you want sources on the Masturbation/Dominance issue, here you go!

Do Animals Masturbate? - Masturbation is linked to intelligence! - Softpedia
Do animals masturbate? - By Daniel Engber - Slate Magazine
Animal sexual behaviour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wanted proof that dog humping is consider by animal behaviourists to be masturbation.

Originally Posted by Inertia

I didn't say that you said they were omniscient just as I didn't claim that animal behaviorists did not exist, not that they were like unicorns. Let's not take me out of context either ;).

So the omniscient comment was completely unrelated to this entire argument and you thought about putting it in there because....
Nor did I assert that you did not claim animal behaviourists did not exist. You said we knew very little about animal behaviour and I said there are such things as animal behaviourists- and that's end of our story.

Originally Posted by Inertia

Not a topic for YOU at the dinner table. This is irrelevant, I know tons of people that like to talk about their sexual preferences anywhere. I find it distasteful, but it's illegal to shoot people, so...

Oh yeah because regaling personal tales of sexual encounters is so mundane it's on par with the weather. Seriously I doubt those metric tonnes of people sit down at family reunion or business dinner and talk about their sexual adventures like they would talk about their summer vacation. People do talk about their sexual experiences to people they know or feel comfortable talking too.
Look at the bigger picture, acts of bestiality are going to be committed discretely. So to say that they are forced into hiding is ridiculous because the act it's self is committed in privacy. It's not like transvestism where people are going to notice because it is obvious. Sex requires a certain amount of nudity which means you can't do it in public- so how will they know unless you tell them.

Originally Posted by Inertia

Please provide moral reasoning then, all I've heard so far from you is motions of what is "socially virtuous" in some cultures that could simply be killing/hurting someone that isn't "one of us". If that's the kind of reasoning you're using to regard bestiality as wrong then so be it, but I'm just telling you that I don't adhere to this volatile understanding of morals.

So everything I've written about animal abuse, differences in human and animal sexuality, health and safety hazards ect just flew over your head. To sum up my reasoning animal welfare and safety needs to placed above the humans urge for a quick thrill.

Originally Posted by Inertia

I'm not saying that everyone does bestiality either, nor that everyone approves of it. This is besides the point entirely. I'm asking whether it's wrong, or better put; What is wrong with it?

Wrong in what context? I could demonstrate through biological diagrams how certain apart of anatomy don't fit together or produce a law that tells you that it is wrong... what exactly are you looking for?

Also, although I do love wikipedia, I wouldn't use it as a reliable source, seeing as how easily people can edit it.

Umm no. I believe we were having a discussion about dog humping behaviour, so I don't know where that got translated into the whole animal kingdom but hey ho.

I wanted proof that dog humping is consider by animal behaviourists to be masturbation.

Well this is tedious...

Dog Mounting and Dog Masturbation, Causes and Types
Dog Sexual Behavior Alterations. Dog Masturbation, Homosexuality, Hyperactivity, Aggressiveness

I'm litereally trying to find a source which claims otherwise.

So the omniscient comment was completely unrelated to this entire argument and you thought about putting it in there because....
Nor did I assert that you did not claim animal behaviourists did not exist. You said we knew very little about animal behaviour and I said there are such things as animal behaviourists- and that's end of our story.

The omniscient comment was about as useful as your comment that animal behaviorists were not like unicorns. Except, it was a little more so, because my point was that their opinions change often as they can't know everything.

Seriously I doubt *snip*

This isn't about your doubts though, this is about things that actually happen and I've seen it, so I don't have the same doubts you do.

Look at the bigger picture, acts of bestiality are going to be committed discretely. So to say that they are forced into hiding is ridiculous because the act it's self is committed in privacy. It's not like transvestism where people are going to notice because it is obvious. Sex requires a certain amount of nudity which means you can't do it in public- so how will they know unless you tell them.

There's always been something not so private about sex. It's not particularly difficult to tell who someone is having sex with seeing that marriage, courting and pornography are so widely publicised.

So everything I've written about animal abuse, differences in human and animal sexuality, health and safety hazards ect just flew over your head. To sum up my reasoning animal welfare and safety needs to placed above the humans urge for a quick thrill.

Yes... they did sort of fly over my head because. We're specifically speaking of sex where the possibility of abuse, health and safety hazards and sexuality is no different than such phenomenon among human beings.

Wrong in what context? I could demonstrate through biological diagrams how certain apart of anatomy don't fit together or produce a law that tells you that it is wrong... what exactly are you looking for?

Are you saying that we should restrict people from having sex with animals only where the two parts can fit (Male Human to Female Horse/Cow) (Female human to male ape)? or that the law equates what should be considered right and wrong (aka Bestiality is bad unless it's in Denmark) (Black people should have all sat at the back of the bus 60 years ago)?

Originally Posted by CiaoPinkZebra

Also, although I do love wikipedia, I wouldn't use it as a reliable source, seeing as how easily people can edit it.

The majority of sources I've relied upon from wikipedia provide logical arguments instead of actual evidences. Furthermore, I've also provided plenty of other sources that aren't wikipedia.

Originally Posted by Inertia

Well this is tedious...

Dog Mounting and Dog Masturbation, Causes and Types
Dog Sexual Behavior Alterations. Dog Masturbation, Homosexuality, Hyperactivity, Aggressiveness[/B]

I think you’ve confused yourself. The articles uses masturbation/humping as interchangeable terms without committing to the sexual pleasure aspect of masturbation which becomes apparent later in both articles. You’ll find that both articles do not commit to the idea that humping inanimate objects is purely sexual behaviour as you so suggested and lists a variety of different causes for humping behaviour.

Originally Posted by Inertia

The omniscient comment was about as useful as your comment that animal behaviorists were not like unicorns. Except, it was a little more so, because my point was that their opinions change often as they can't know everything.

How was it not useful? You said we knew very little about animal behaviour and I said hey they are people that study it and guess what- your now using those people as a apart of your argument- see above for details.

Originally Posted by Inertia

This isn't about your doubts though, this is about things that actually happen and I've seen it, so I don't have the same doubts you do.

Seen what? People talking about sex? Really? Me too! OMG- I think you misinterpreted and lost the point somewhere along the way. This has nothing to do with my personal conversational preferences. What I am saying is that in life that there are some topics of conversations that can be misconstrued as offensive which makes them different from inoffensive topics of conversation such as weather, gardening, ect. So people exercise consideration and discretion when choosing to talk about such things. For example I would talk to my sister about my painful periods but I would not talk to my patients about my painful periods. Nor would I expect them to enquire after my periods. Which is similar to sex.

Originally Posted by Inertia

There's always been something not so private about sex. It's not particularly difficult to tell who someone is having sex with seeing that marriage, courting and pornography are so widely publicised.

That's why paedophiles are caught so quickly- seriously that is a duff point a relationship status is an indicator of a sex life but it does not tell you what that sex life entails of- unless they do amateur porn and forget not to look into the camera- but not every one is a porn star in the making.

Originally Posted by Inertia

Yes... they did sort of fly over my head because. We're specifically speaking of sex where the possibility of abuse, health and safety hazards and sexuality is no different than such phenomenon among human beings.

Human to human can give and with hold conscent- animals can't. See the vast difference. Human can say 'yes' and 'no' or 'I've got a headache'. Dog says 'woof' and cat says 'meow'. Do you see the big glaring difference.
This is not the same. Anatomically we are different, we could damage them and they could damage us. Humans are designed to fit together. Human and mouse or human and horse not so much. Disease is problem, animal STDs are not the same as human STD's we could end mutating the strain and voila it's swine flu all over again.....

Originally Posted by Inertia

Are you saying that we should restrict people from having sex with animals only where the two parts can fit (Male Human to Female Horse/Cow) (Female human to male ape)? or that the law equates what should be considered right and wrong (aka Bestiality is bad unless it's in Denmark) (Black people should have all sat at the back of the bus 60 years ago)?

No, I'm asking you to define 'wrong'. I could show how things were wrong in different contexts but that might not fulfil your standards of wrong. So without knowing you definition of wrong I can not offer a conclusion that would satisfy you.

Originally Posted by Inertia

The majority of sources I've relied upon from wikipedia provide logical arguments instead of actual evidences. Furthermore, I've also provided plenty of other sources that aren't wikipedia.

I know, I'm just saying that maybe wikipedia shouldn't be the only source because it can be so easily edited ^^

@Una: 1. You are appealing to authority when relying on animal behaviorists.
2. There is no such thing as objective right and wrong.
3. You have the burden of proof in showing that having intercourse with a different species causes more damage than forcing an
animal to be castrated or even imprisoned through domestication.
4. When is masturbation not sexual?
5. The rest of the arguments you are using are appeal to emotion.

@Ciao: Wikipedia cannot just be edited to put false information in. Mostly it would be incomplete information. Editors of Wikipedia are required to provide the sources they retrieved the information on. Furthermore Inertia is not using the authority of Wikipedia for anything. He is only using it as a way to present the argument in a logical way. Have you ever tried editing Wikipedia?

I think you’ve confused yourself. The articles uses masturbation/humping as interchangeable terms without committing to the sexual pleasure aspect of masturbation which becomes apparent later in both articles. You’ll find that both articles do not commit to the idea that humping inanimate objects is purely sexual behaviour as you so suggested and lists a variety of different causes for humping behaviour.

Nuh uh, I think it's you who has confused yourself, I've never said that animal masturbation had any connection to sexual pleasure, as a matter of fact through out this thread I've stated the following:

Originally Posted by Me

I didn't claim that they were capable of lust at all, nor did I assert that it was necessary for them to be.

Originally Posted by Me

the problem is that it is impossible to say that any animal feels what you may believe it feels. Even dolphins... The only thing we can build off of here is facts. We have, so far, several reasons to believe that many animals have sex for some form of reward, because they engage in:

• Masturbation
• Homosexuality
• Cross Species Sex
• Oral Sex
  and
• Prostitution

What evidences suggest that they do not get any reward from any of the above?

Also if you remember you stated:

Originally Posted by You

This whole argument is hinged animals wanting sex, not so long ago you were talking about a hypothetical situation where an animal was displaying signs of wanting sex which I would not recognize.

And yet my sources I gave you (I was hoping you would notice this) state:

Originally Posted by Mai Sauce

Sexually motivated mounting and masturbation are often accompanied by “flirtatious” body language and courtship behavior (tail up, ears rotated backward, licking, pawing, play bows, etc.).

Which is a confirmation of what I stated before.

How was it not useful? You said we knew very little about animal behaviour and I said hey they are people that study it and guess what- your now using those people as a apart of your argument- see above for details.

Awwww Una, this is unfair, I'm only doing as you asked;

Originally Posted by You

What I've read of animal behaviourists they seem to think it an issue of dominance opposed to masturbation, so would you kindly provide your sources...

and

Originally Posted by You

I wanted proof that dog humping is consider by animal behaviourists to be masturbation.

What more do you want from me???

Originally Posted by Sauce

Mounting, thrusting (humping) and masturbation are normal behaviors exhibited by most dogs.

Seen what? People talking about sex? Really? Me too! OMG- I think you misinterpreted and lost the point somewhere along the way. This has nothing to do with my personal conversational preferences.

Sorry, when you said "I doubt" it appeared to me like a personal reference. "Everyone doubts" would have probably been more specific.

What I am saying is that in life that there are some topics of conversations that can be misconstrued as offensive which makes them different from inoffensive topics of conversation such as weather, gardening, ect. So people exercise consideration and discretion when choosing to talk about such things. For example I would talk to my sister about my painful periods but I would not talk to my patients about my painful periods. Nor would I expect them to enquire after my periods. Which is similar to sex.

Hmmm, using a reference to what you prefer is useful, but it won't apply in all cultures, but the fact remains is, in all cultures, everywhere, restriction pushes people into hiding.

That's why paedophiles are caught so quickly- seriously that is a duff point a relationship status is an indicator of a sex life but it does not tell you what that sex life entails of- unless they do amateur porn and forget not to look into the camera- but not every one is a porn star in the making.

If I'm not wrong paedophillia is also illegal ergo restricted, hence also pushing someone into taking measures where their actions remain discreet.

Human to human can give and with hold conscent- animals can't. See the vast difference. Human can say 'yes' and 'no' or 'I've got a headache'. Dog says 'woof' and cat says 'meow'. Do you see the big glaring difference.

No, I don't and many others don't either. Not all sexual encounters involve verbal consent. Most animals won't so much as let me touch them or hold them if they don't want it, they wriggle, try to escape, fight back etc... Pet owners receive plenty of signs of what their pets like and dislike without a common language.

This is not the same. Anatomically we are different, we could damage them and they could damage us. Humans are designed to fit together. Human and mouse or human and horse not so much.

I ask a second time. Does this mean, that humans should only seek sexual interactions with animals that they can fit in?

Furthermore, you're being one track minded here, I also gave the example of a woman receiving sexual gratification from simple horse riding and riding the horse only to receive that pleasure. Not all zoophille activities must involve intercourse.

Disease is problem, animal STDs are not the same as human STD's we could end mutating the strain and voila it's swine flu all over again.....

I don't believe there are any STDs that can transfer from animals to humans, nevetheless if there were, you must realise that having sex with a human can lead to STDs and mutations etc... So what's the difference exactly?

No, I'm asking you to define 'wrong'. I could show how things were wrong in different contexts but that might not fulfil your standards of wrong. So without knowing you definition of wrong I can not offer a conclusion that would satisfy you.

Well actually, the point of this thread is for people to tell me whether they think it is wrong or not and if it is, why they think it's wrong.

----------

Just because animals have sex and masturbate doesn't mean that they want to have sex with humans. In fact, it has nothing to do with it. One sexual act is different from another, so you can't argue that, just because they masturbate, it means they want to have sex with humans.

No, I'm not arguing that at all. The idea that they want to have sex with humans comes from the fact that they do have sex with humans with not protestation either.

Shooting people and sexual acts are two entirely different things. You can't compare the two.

It was a joke >.>

I have a question for you... you said you were ageist it, however you're arguing strongly in favor of it...

But... what's your question?

I assume you mean to ask me, under what reasoning I disagree with these acts? I'll not go into detail, but you'll find my arguments in the "Being Gay" thread about why I do not think that 2 people of the same sex should be allowed to marry. It's not really related to this at all, but just to clarify my perspective on this a little I'll direct you there.

I wrote my reply as one cos it was getting to fragmented!

@ Inertia Lust is sexual desire, not sexual pleasure. Animals must be able to express sexual desire so they can consent non-verbally that they want sex. The only circumstances where sexual wanting is not required on the animals part is in cases of rape. Masturbation in the animal kingdom is used as an argument against the notion that animals only use sex for sexual pleasure. This line of reasoning can only be valid if the act of masturbation induces sexual excitement. Your articles describes masturbation as animals stimulating genitals by themselves/ with an object/ or rubbing against an object. Both articles go on to state the various reasons for this behaviour one of which is sexual excitement. So to claim that you never made the correlation between the two is inaccurate. Nor would it justify your reasoning for saying dog humping is thought to be masturbation by animal behaviourists. Humping falls under the action of masturbation, rubbing genitals against an object, but is not an explanation to the humping. Your articles list various reasons for humping none of which you used in your originally statement or can be linked back to term masturbation.
The difference between humans and animals is communication. Humans are capable of creating and expanding languages, alphabets, signs and signals to express themselves. Animals are only capable of being taught signs and signals and even then it is unknown how much insight they have into the meaning of the signs and signals that they are taught. Do animals understand the concepts of the signals they are being taught. Animals act on impulses which explains why it is observable in species x that all females act in manner x while in heat. This is not an indicator of insight or capability of expressing sexual wanting. Animals are hard wired to behave in this way to further the continuation of their species. Stroking the back of a sow while she is in heat will cause her to become rigid which is the behaviour observed in her species. These behaviours are instinctual they are not formed from informed thought or reasoning like consent. Animals do not possess the same sapience as we do. They can give their opinion on a menage a trois through grunting.
People are not pushed into hiding by restrictions, paedophiles can live in a community successfully without hiding. Unless you intend to do the act in public or tell someone no one is going to find out.
I did not see your example of a horse rider, so whether I missed it or it was a quote to someone else… Some girls claim the motion of a bus engine is enough to excite them. It does not necessarily mean that they are attracted to buses. So it would depend what is the source of sexual excitement.
STDs such as HIV have mutated so that a variety species can now get HIV. Diseases originate from one species then mutate to cross over to another!
I want to know your definition of wrong. If it is a biological wrong then I might say anatomical these don’t fit together ect,. It was an example not a reflection of my own viewpoint thus why I didn’t answer the question because I was hoping you would have realised that.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

@Una: 1. You are appealing to authority when relying on animal behaviorists.
2. There is no such thing as objective right and wrong.
3. You have the burden of proof in showing that having intercourse with a different species causes more damage than forcing an
animal to be castrated or even imprisoned through domestication.
4. When is masturbation not sexual?
5. The rest of the arguments you are using are appeal to emotion.

1- I said they exist, I didn't say they were right.
2- I said that, please see the bottom of post 44 for more details,
3- I never said that having sex with animal x is more damaging then castrating animal x, so why would I have to prove a statement I never asserted.
4. I didn't say that either.
5. O'RLY- Nothing screams THINK OF THE CHILDREN then semantics, STDs and consent :insane: :boogie:

Originally Posted by una

Masturbation in the animal kingdom is used as an argument against the notion that animals only use sex for sexual pleasure. This line of reasoning can only be valid if the act of masturbation induces sexual excitement.

There is no reason to believe it doesn't, furthermore Masturbation alone is not used as the only argument for this notion, but also homosexuality, cross species sex and other sexual practices.

Originally Posted by una

Your articles describes masturbation as animals stimulating genitals by themselves/ with an object/ or rubbing against an object. Both articles go on to state the various reasons for this behaviour one of which is sexual excitement. So to claim that you never made the correlation between the two is inaccurate.

But I didn't make a correlation between the two, you asked me for evidence that dog humping was considered masturbation. I gave you that evidence, what else you may have found on that page isn't my business.

Originally Posted by una

Nor would it justify your reasoning for saying dog humping is thought to be masturbation by animal behaviourists. Humping falls under the action of masturbation, rubbing genitals against an object, but is not an explanation to the humping.

You're contradicting yourself here. You just said...

that I said p is thought to be q, is not justified.
"dog humping is thought to be masturbation by animal behaviourists [is not justified]"

Then you say:

p falls under q
"Humping falls under the action of masturbation"


You're being really confusing, what exactly do you want from me?

Originally Posted by una

Your articles list various reasons for humping none of which you used in your originally statement or can be linked back to term masturbation.

But you JUST said that it "falls under" masturbation....

Where are you going here?

Originally Posted by una

The difference between humans and animals is communication. Humans are capable of creating and expanding languages, alphabets, signs and signals to express themselves. Animals are only capable of being taught signs and signals and even then it is unknown how much insight they have into the meaning of the signs and signals that they are taught. Do animals understand the concepts of the signals they are being taught.

Without teaching it anything, I can immediately tell that a feral cat is afraid of me or if I gain it's trust, I can immediately tell (without teaching it ANY signals) what kind of petting it prefers or if it doesn't like the way I'm holding it etc. The only real communication problem I had was letting the feral cat know when it was hurting me with it's claws, but I always knew when it didn't like what I was doing.

Originally Posted by una

Animals act on impulses which explains why it is observable in species x that all females act in manner x while in heat. This is not an indicator of insight or capability of expressing sexual wanting. Animals are hard wired to behave in this way to further the continuation of their species.

Human's act on impulses, which explains why it is commonly observable for humans that are angry, happy, sad, in pain or experiencing sexual pleasure act in a similar manner. We are hard wired to behave in this way so that we can survive and also to further the continuation our species.

Hardly a point...

Originally Posted by una

Stroking the back of a sow while she is in heat will cause her to become rigid which is the behaviour observed in her species. These behaviours are instinctual they are not formed from informed thought or reasoning like consent. Animals do not possess the same sapience as we do. They can give their opinion on a menage a trois through grunting.

There are a variety of inadvertent sexual responses you can elicit from humans too. Like, women that are aroused by bonobo porn. Which likely includes you.

Originally Posted by una

People are not pushed into hiding by restrictions, paedophiles can live in a community successfully without hiding. Unless you intend to do the act in public or tell someone no one is going to find out.

By hiding, I mean hiding the act so that it is never to be known. You may know how many women a guy has had sex with, but it's not likely you'll have any knowledge of the amount of animals he has done so with.

Originally Posted by una

I did not see your example of a horse rider, so whether I missed it or it was a quote to someone else… Some girls claim the motion of a bus engine is enough to excite them. It does not necessarily mean that they are attracted to buses. So it would depend what is the source of sexual excitement.

Well we won't have to worry about the bus's consent, so never mind that, but there are people that are specifically aroused by horses. Do you consider it wrong to ride horses for sexual pleasure if the person is attracted sexually to the horse?

Originally Posted by una

STDs such as HIV have mutated so that a variety species can now get HIV. Diseases originate from one species then mutate to cross over to another!

Well... you can't stop that now it's happened can you? I suppose testing an animal for HIV before sex is useful for prevention, or simply wearing protection, but this poses no more of a threat than human sex.

Originally Posted by una

I want to know your definition of wrong. If it is a biological wrong then I might say anatomical these don’t fit together ect,.

But I want to know why it's wrong according to your definition, unless you don't think it is wrong?

Originally Posted by una

It was an example not a reflection of my own viewpoint thus why I didn’t answer the question because I was hoping you would have realised that.

It's impossible for me to realise that the things that you're saying are not your own viewpoint.

Originally Posted by una

1- I said they exist, I didn't say they were right.
2- I said that, please see the bottom of post 44 for more details,
3- I never said that having sex with animal x is more damaging then castrating animal x, so why would I have to prove a statement I never asserted.
4. I didn't say that either.
5. O'RLY- Nothing screams THINK OF THE CHILDREN then semantics, STDs and consent :insane: :boogie:

1. Why mention them in an argument as experts on animals if they are not right or relevant to your points? I could say that cowboys exist...but that would have nothing to do with the topic at hand >.>

2. You are asking Inertia to define Right and Wrong. That is impossible to do. Furthermore you are claiming there is an inherent moral inside all humans that say "no, don't do that." I am well aware of your post, but your additional posts are in conflict with that post and so I challenge them.

3. Okay, if you agree that sex with animal is not more damaging than castration, then by logical standards sex with animal should be legal as long as castration is legal. You cannot use the excuse that it "may" hurt the animal as your premise.

4. Oh, I'm sorry...you claimed that these 'animal behaviorists' who you do not assert are correct, claim that dog humping is about dominance rather than masturbation. So, again...Appeal to Authority. Use logic...Humans are dominant creatures too...they hump things...it is not to show their dominance, it is to achieve sexual gratification. Why would it be that way with dogs? Just because animal behaviorists want to claim that dogs do not have sex or do sexual things for pleasure and only reproduction...doesn't make it true >.>.

5.

So everything I've written about animal abuse, differences in human and animal sexuality, health and safety hazards ect just flew over your head. To sum up my reasoning animal welfare and safety needs to placed above the humans urge for a quick thrill.

The Bolded indicates where you appealed to emotion and/or authority. The leftover point that is not bolded is irrelevant as interspecies sex exists and is practiced when it does not include humans.

Originally Posted by una

The difference between humans and animals is communication. Humans are capable of creating and expanding languages, alphabets, signs and signals to express themselves. Animals are only capable of being taught signs and signals and even then it is unknown how much insight they have into the meaning of the signs and signals that they are taught. Do animals understand the concepts of the signals they are being taught.

I challenge this statement as well now that I think about it. Bees communicate just fine by dancing...and it is not instinct. Wolves communicate just fine...and it is not instinct either, at least not what you are asserting. In fact, any social animal I can think of...communicates...unless it has been domesticated already...so maybe we should imprison all the humans who have domesticated animals because they are contributing to limiting the communication gap between animals of the same species. I am sure that if we had not domesticated cats and dogs...they would not have to learn how to communicate from us. We have destroyed their original communication and so they now must learn from us in order to survive in our world.

EDIT: Sorry Tutela, didn't see your post!

1- FYI I said 'animal behaviourists are not like unicorns' in response to 'we know very little about animal behaviour'. KAY?!?
2- plz read

Originally Posted by me >.<

You have your own defined set of morals so don't pretend you have no notion of what moral objectivity is. You've already said that you don't agree with bestiality which is kinda of an indicator that somewhere inside of you is some moral reasoning that says sleeping with animals is a no-no. I never said that morality was a universal set of beliefs. All beliefs which are subjective but morals are consider as socially virtuous. There will be differences and similarities depending on age, culture, religion, ect. In some countries child labour is socially okay while in another country it is illegal- so which moral is right? If you are using concepts of 'good' and 'bad' as indicators then you are not going to get very far because both are subjective and change when viewing different points of view.... anywhoo it all becomes a subjective mess which makes the clear logical deduction that you so desire difficult to achieve.

I'm asking him to define wrong using his own standards which I explain-

Wrong in what context? I could demonstrate through biological diagrams how certain apart of anatomy don't fit together or produce a law that tells you that it is wrong... what exactly are you looking for?

No, I'm asking you to define 'wrong'. I could show how things were wrong in different contexts but that might not fulfil your standards of wrong. So without knowing your definition of wrong I can not offer a conclusion that would satisfy you.

3- I never agreed to that either.

4- I never gave indication of their credibility because I did not want to generalize an entire group of people and their work as correct or incorrect. Animal behaviourists observe animal behaviour in captivity and in the wild and compile their theories. We have no way of knowing how true these theories are, we can't exactly observe the exact cognitions and thoughts of an animal, but their research does offer an insight. Humping as means of asserting dominance is such a theory put forwarded by them. I don't see the logic in assuming that humans are the same as dogs.

5- I never said that all animal behaviour is instinct. A wolf and bee can not have a conversation about bestiality like we are having. That is the difference between them and us. We can communicate to each other complex ideaS and beliefs through language, art, word, music ect.


@ Inertia

I’m only going to explain one last time. The articles used the term in a specific context which does not reflect the context in which you used it, because it is like saying ‘some people consider scarlet to be a form of red’. Basically you used masturbation in a sexual context in your original statement then changed it when sources conflicted with your argument so masturbation became non-sexual. Using masturbation in non-sexual context makes your statement true but then the statement fails to offer an explanation to why dogs hump.
There is a huge difference between trying to pet a feral cat and asking it for it to explain in signs and signals it’s informed consent. Humans have a sort of predictive power. We understand the complication and consequences of our actions. Animals don’t. They can not give you their opinions on contraception or STDs or abortion like we can. We don’t even know if they are capable of level reasoning. Humans intelligence and animal intelligence are not the same- they may share similarities but they are not the same. So how can you expect an animal to give informed consent? How can you interpret a cat’s body so you know it is saying, I understand what you want to do, I want to do it, I understand the complications, I would like you to wear a condom, you can touch me here, but don’t touch there,- you get the idea.
Impulsive behaviour is when you act on impulse, so today I brought a handbag on a impulse. I think you are confusing instinctually behaviour with impulsive behaviour. We convey our mood through body language like most animals, it is an example of instinctive behaviour. However it does not negate what I said earlier which is human intelligence has enabled us to create and expand the way we use symbols. Animals do not possess such intelligence so there ability to communicate is not on par with ours. Their signs and signals can be the product of instinct opposed to thought and reason.
Zoophiles will only be oppressed if they want to tell people that they sleep with animals or have sexual fantasies about animals. They can’t exactly publicly display the act without breaking the law which is same for sex amongst humans. We only know about some one sexual history if they tell us, we can not witness it- unless they invite us O_o

Originally Posted by Inertia

Well... you can't stop that now it's happened can you? I suppose testing an animal for HIV before sex is useful for prevention, or simply wearing protection, but this poses no more of a threat than human sex.

That's not what I meant. Look at swine flu. That started as a virus that passed from pig to pig. Then it mutated so it passed from pig to human. Then it mutated again, so it passed from human to human. HIV is an example of a disease that has done that, (not necessarily through sex though). So if a dog had an STD that was exposed to human there is a risk it could mutate and humans would get it.

Originally Posted by Inertia

But I want to know why it's wrong according to your definition, unless you don't think it is wrong?

Quid pro quo Clarice.

Originally Posted by una

EDIT: Sorry Tutela, didn't see your post!

Not a problem ^_^ You eventually found it :)

Originally Posted by una

1- FYI I said 'animal behaviourists are not like unicorns' in response to 'we know very little about animal behaviour'. KAY?!?

Okay, so let me ask this to you straight then. Are you or are you not referring to the authority of Animal Behaviorists when referencing Inertia's statement of how little we truly know about animals. Let me explain the cause and effect of your future answer.

1. You can choose to say that animal behaviorists are the experts and we can listen to them.

2. You can choose to say that animal behaviorists exist, but their authority is not credible.

3. You can choose to say I don't know or I don't care.

Option 1 shows appeal to authority
Option 2 shows the irrelevance of even bringing animal behaviorists into question
Option 3 doesn't help your case as it is indifferent and apathetic, and again...irrelevant to the debate at hand.

Now please choose one so we can move on ^_^

Originally Posted by una

2- plz read



I'm asking him to define wrong using his own standards which I explain-

You are claiming it is wrong...so you cannot use his context of wrong to explain why...you have the burden of proof to show under your own contexts why it is wrong. He can then assess your contexts and show flaws in them if he so wishes. However, you are claiming it is wrong...so you must provide the context and proofs in order to back up your position.

Originally Posted by una

3- I never agreed to that either.

What do you agree with then? You have now told me that you do not agree to either:

A. Sex with animals is worse than castration

OR

B. Sex with animals is not worse than castration.

As you can see, unless you are again being indifferent and apathetic...your words pose a problem as you cannot disagree to both and still have any of your premises correct. You have to either agree to one or the other, if you choose to be indifferent and apathetic...then...again, your opinion does nothing to further your points or hinder ours as it is irrelevant to the entirety of the debate.

Originally Posted by una

4- I never gave indication of their credibility because I did not want to generalize an entire group of people and their work as correct or incorrect. Animal behaviourists observe animal behaviour in captivity and in the wild and compile their theories. We have no way of knowing how true these theories are, we can't exactly observe the exact cognitions and thoughts of an animal, but their research does offer an insight. Humping as means of asserting dominance is such a theory put forwarded by them. I don't see the logic in assuming that humans are the same as dogs.

If this theory is not supported by you, then you have no reason to use it. If you do choose to use it, provide your evidence and make sure you do not just appeal to them because you feel they are the professionals.

Originally Posted by una

5- I never said that all animal behaviour is instinct. A wolf and bee can not have a conversation about bestiality like we are having. That is the difference between them and us. We can communicate to each other complex ideaS and beliefs through language, art, word, music ect.

You claimed that animals, excluding humans, are unable to communicate, and thus unable to consent. I showed you examples of communication. Just because it is not our language, does not mean that it isn't communication. Like I said before, if you are doing something to an animal and the animal does not like it...it WILL fight back. Try putting a cat in a bath if you don't believe me.

Originally Posted by una

I’m only going to explain one last time. The articles used the term in a specific context which does not reflect the context in which you used it, because it is like saying ‘some people consider scarlet to be a form of red’. Basically you used masturbation in a sexual context in your original statement then changed it when sources conflicted with your argument so masturbation became non-sexual. Using masturbation in non-sexual context makes your statement true but then the statement fails to offer an explanation to why dogs hump.

You have a number of things wrong here:

1. The sources I posted agreed that masturbation among animals had sexual connotations.
2. If they didn't it wouldn't disprove the idea that they did masturbate for sexual purposes.
3. I never claimed that animals masturbated for sexual purposes anywhere in this thread.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by una

They can not give you their opinions on contraception or STDs or abortion like we can.

You do understand that this is because they likely have no opinion on contraceptives, STDs and abortion, especially when copulating with a creature that will not require contraceptives, abortions and nor are there any known STDs and if there are, there's more tranmissable STDs among their own species.

So how can you expect an animal to give informed consent? How can you interpret a cat’s body so you know it is saying, I understand what you want to do, I want to do it, I understand the complications, I would like you to wear a condom, you can touch me here, but don’t touch there,- you get the idea.

Why would a cat want you to wear a condom? Do you not see something ridiculous in saying that? Unless your point is that it wouldn't understand the topic well enough to know that it could have that option? In which case applies to humans in a lot of cases. And again, if a cat doesn't want you to touch it in someway it exhibits very distinguishable signs, which are in themselves often much clearer than a verbal means of doing so.

Originally Posted by una

Impulsive behaviour is when you act on impulse, so today I brought a handbag on a impulse. I think you are confusing instinctually behaviour with impulsive behaviour. We convey our mood through body language like most animals, it is an example of instinctive behaviour. However it does not negate what I said earlier which is human intelligence has enabled us to create and expand the way we use symbols. Animals do not possess such intelligence so there ability to communicate is not on par with ours. Their signs and signals can be the product of instinct opposed to thought and reason.

And again I think you fail to understand what I mean when I say, all these concepts are not required in understanding what someone wants and doesn't want.

Originally Posted by una

Zoophiles will only be oppressed if they want to tell people that they sleep with animals or have sexual fantasies about animals. They can’t exactly publicly display the act without breaking the law.

Hence the restriction.

Originally Posted by una

That's not what I meant. Look at swine flu. That started as a virus that passed from pig to pig. Then it mutated so it passed from pig to human. Then it mutated again, so it passed from human to human. HIV is an example of a disease that has done that, (not necessarily through sex though). So if a dog had an STD that was exposed to human there is a risk it could mutate and humans would get it.

But there's a chance of that through usual interactions which don't involve sex. So should we get rid of animals altogether? Mutations can happen among any of the thousands of different viruses and trillions of bacteria strains world-wide, appealing to the consequences of one isn't giving you much of a point. And even if so, does this make it wrong?

Originally Posted by una

Quid pro quo Clarice.

I have no idea what that means, but it doesn't help this debate any more than anything else you've provided so far.

@Tutela de Xaoc

1- I said they exist.
2- I can ask what I like.
3- I'm not advocating or defending a premise I did not make.
4- Get down with your self righteous self. If you want proof all you have to is please.
5- I never claimed that animals could not communicate.


@Inertia

I tell you something, you tell me something. I'm not playing ball by myself- it's getting lonely.....

Originally Posted by una

@Tutela de Xaoc

1- I said they exist.
2- I can ask what I like.
3- I'm not advocating or defending a premise I did not make.
4- Get down with your self righteous self. If you want proof all you have to is please.
5- I never claimed that animals could not communicate.

1. Which is irrelevant to the discussion

2. I presented logical argument categories. You can ask how you like, but unless I missed an option, whatever you ask will fall under one of those three categories.

3. You claimed bestiality violates an animals rights, or were you just kidding? Also, apathy and indifference...as you are choosing not to defend or oppose...is not a very valid answer to a debate thread such as this. Simply saying I don't know or I don't care is hardly a debatable thing as anyone can say that when they can't choose either or.

4. You are referencing a theory about dominance...are you suggesting I should just be ignorant and take this claim at face value because some supposed people say so?

5.

Originally Posted by una

The difference between humans and animals is communication. Humans are capable of creating and expanding languages, alphabets, signs and signals to express themselves. Animals are only capable of being taught signs and signals and even then it is unknown how much insight they have into the meaning of the signs and signals that they are taught.

The above quote indicates that you are saying that humans are capable of valid communication and animals are not.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

1. Which is irrelevant to the discussion.

2. I presented logical argument categories. You can ask how you like, but unless I missed an option, whatever you ask will fall under one of those three categories.

I said animal behaviourists exist. You're not going to bully me into your little multiple choice scenario.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

4. You are referencing a theory about dominance...are you suggesting I should just be ignorant and take this claim at face value because some supposed people say so?

I was being sarcastic- basically if you want to assume I'm idiot instead of asking for proof *hint-hint* then carry on.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

5.

The above quote indicates that you are saying that humans are capable of valid communication and animals are not.

No it doesn't. If animals are incapable of communication then they are incapable of being taught signs and signals because they are incapable of communication.

So I'll try and explain a different way. There are degrees of articulation and there are degrees of intelligence. Humans can give an opinion on abortion because we possess the language and the intelligence to do so. An animal can not because it lacks the articulation and intelligence to form and express an opinion on abortion. Animals can communicate but as I said in an earlier post it is not on par with us. Finally I do not just say consent, I say informed consent.

Originally Posted by una

I said animal behaviourists exist. You're not going to bully me into your little multiple choice scenario.

I am not attempting to bully you in any way. I am sorry you see it like that. I am simply saying your statement that animal behaviorists exist is completely irrelevant...so why are you even stating it. If you have no purpose for stating a sentence...why state it?

Originally Posted by una

I was being sarcastic- basically if you want to assume I'm idiot instead of asking for proof *hint-hint* then carry on.

The proof you provide me has to be unbiased...meaning it can't be 'because the animal behaviorist said so.' If it is unbiased, then yes..I ask for proof.

Originally Posted by una

No it doesn't. If animals are incapable of communication then they are incapable of being taught signs and signals because they are incapable of communication.

So I'll try and explain a different way. There are degrees of articulation and there are degrees of intelligence. Humans can give an opinion on abortion because we possess the language and the intelligence to do so. An animal can not because it lacks the articulation and intelligence to form and express an opinion on abortion. Animals can communicate but as I said in an earlier post it is not on par with us. Finally I do not just say consent, I say informed consent.

Okay...using this context...I will argue that since medieval period people did not know about STDs...none of them were acting very moral about having sex freely with each other as they could not give informed consent and therefore they should not have been allowed to have sex. Furthermore, I ask why you place human standards above all other living species' standards...why must humans and animals alike follow a specific human societies' way of thinking. Just as you cannot provide animals the meaning of their actions...you also cannot provide them the meaning of consent. Who are we to say the animal even cares about such silly ideas that humans have to use to govern themselves? If they are upset with the actions being done, like a cat being put in a bath, THEY WILL FIGHT BACK....THAT IS THEIR COMMUNICATION.

Originally Posted by una

I said animal behaviourists exist. You're not going to bully me into your little multiple choice scenario.

This isn't about bullying, we're just trying to find out what you meant. Clearly the problem here is that no matter what you meant it'd lead to either one of 2 conclusions.

1. What you said was irrelevant to any of your points entirely
2. What you said was logically fallacious.

You clearly don't want to reply in order to avoid any of those 2 conclusions, even if they have already been reached.

Originally Posted by una

No it doesn't. If animals are incapable of communication then they are incapable of being taught signs and signals because they are incapable of communication.

So I'll try and explain a different way. There are degrees of articulation and there are degrees of intelligence. Humans can give an opinion on abortion because we possess the language and the intelligence to do so. An animal can not because it lacks the articulation and intelligence to form and express an opinion on abortion. Animals can communicate but as I said in an earlier post it is not on par with us. Finally I do not just say consent, I say informed consent.

If you read again, you'll see that he said "valid communication", it's useful to take note of powerful adjectives like "valid". Check your point again.

I am absolutely against Beastiality. It's disgusting, and there is no excuse for having sex with animals when there are plenty of people in the world. Who the hell would want to have sex with a cow or horse? I couldn't live with myself knowing that I had intercourse with an animal. The very thought just makes me wanna hurl..
The ironic thing is that Beauty and the Beast is my favorite movie, and it's constantly being ridiculed for Beastiality points.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

I am not attempting to bully you in any way. I am sorry you see it like that. I am simply saying your statement that animal behaviorists exist is completely irrelevant...so why are you even stating it. If you have no purpose for stating a sentence...why state it?

Because there are people who exist in the world that observe animal behaviour. They gather an indefinite number of facts and try to make generalizations out of them to explain the origin of their behaviour. So to say we know nothing about animal behaviour when there is a body of studies in existence that attempt to explain behaviour through various approaches, is silly. There is so many different studies and approaches I can't commit to saying that they are all good or all bad. There are no absolute truths we can only make approximations. You yourself used Frisch, Tinbergen, and Lorenz to demonstrate how bees communicate, so there must be some part of the ethological knowledge base you consider credible enough to assert as fact.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

The proof you provide me has to be unbiased...meaning it can't be 'because the animal behaviorist said so.' If it is unbiased, then yes..I ask for proof.

This wasn't something my dog trainer told me, either way I'm happy to explain. This type of canine behaviour is observed in captivity and in the wild. Wolves use this type of dominant behaviour to establish heirachy in the pack. The alpha male will mount another male to establish dominance, sometimes they don't even mount from the back i.e ventro-ventral mount. Ventro-ventral mount of infant is not unheard of either. So where does the behaviour originate from? It it the product of a procedure of imitation or procedure of instinct or a procedure of intelligence. In domesticated dogs, puppies have been observed mounting and displaying other dominant behaviour towards their litter mates. A human leg has not much to sexually offer and as Philomel pointed out earlier on a female bitch would back up towards the owner instead of mounting the leg- awkward mounting is an observable behaviour in wolf packs as I previously mentioned.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Okay...using this context...I will argue that since medieval period people did not know about STDs...none of them were acting very moral about having sex freely with each other as they could not give informed consent and therefore they should not have been allowed to have sex. Furthermore, I ask why you place human standards above all other living species' standards...why must humans and animals alike follow a specific human societies' way of thinking.

Informed consent is not some independent state of truth that is unaffected by the passage of time. Knowledge changes. I'm not going to condemn an entire population of people to a life of celibacy because they were ignorant of the 21st century knowledge base. That is ridiculous. If the knowledge existed then they would know-why because they are capable of learning. Animals on the other hand have access to our modern day knowledge but lack the intelligence to comprehend it. That is the major difference.
I never placed human standards above all else. Just because I said human intelligence is higher than animal intelligence, does not translate they are more superior. Human standards are subjective- I can't pretend that there is one universal set of standards every human adheres to. Some folk might be quite happy to bound and muzzle an animal to rape it. Does that make it okay? Some might argue that the animal is their property. I already said this is debate about ethics, you can't hide away from that Tutela. With out ethics and morals there is no such concepts as rights and wrongs. What you and Inertia are asking of the thread is to provide an argument against bestiality absent of moral and ethics. That is impossible. There is always going to be some element of moral and ethical reasoning because if starts with a belief. My belief is that animal abuse is wrong. I can't logically justify my belief because of it's subjective nature but I can explain how my argument against bestiality arrives at that conclusion for me to deem it as wrong.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Just as you cannot provide animals the meaning of their actions...you also cannot provide them the meaning of consent. Who are we to say the animal even cares about such silly ideas that humans have to use to govern themselves? If they are upset with the actions being done, like a cat being put in a bath, THEY WILL FIGHT BACK....THAT IS THEIR COMMUNICATION.

We can understand why animals behave in a certain way, but we can not tell how much insight they have into their behaviour. Where does the behaviour originate? A dog might let its owner hump it because it interprets that as the alpha trying to establish the heirachy. Stroking the back of a sow while she is in heat will stimulate a pattern of behaviour which is instinctive, her physiologically reaction is not a reflection on how she feels about it. Seligman's dogs in the end didn't fight back, do you think they enjoyed being electrocuted to death?
An animal does not have the mental capacity to comprehend the nature of human morality, so it doesn't even have the choice to make such a decision. What makes you think that we have to make that decision for them?

@Inertia- I've covered point 1 in this post and address point 2 in a previous post.

Originally Posted by una

So to say we know nothing about animal behaviour when there is a body of studies in existence that attempt to explain behaviour through various approaches, is silly.

Point of concern; this branch of the debate was initiated regarding the statement that we knew little about what animals want. That you are addressing the idea of someone saying we know nothing about animal behavior is irrelevant and out of context.

Originally Posted by una

@Inertia- I've covered point 1 in this post and address point 2 in a previous post.

Point 2's point was to point out to you that your point had missed a major point of Tutela's previously pointed out point.

----------

Originally Posted by amam2217

there is no excuse for having sex with animals when there are plenty of people in the world.

Would you say that there's no excuse for men to be homosexual, because there are plenty of women in the world?

Originally Posted by una

Because there are people who exist in the world that observe animal behaviour. They gather an indefinite number of facts and try to make generalizations out of them to explain the origin of their behaviour. So to say we know nothing about animal behaviour when there is a body of studies in existence that attempt to explain behaviour through various approaches, is silly. There is so many different studies and approaches I can't commit to saying that they are all good or all bad. There are no absolute truths we can only make approximations. You yourself used Frisch, Tinbergen, and Lorenz to demonstrate how bees communicate, so there must be some part of the ethological knowledge base you consider credible enough to assert as fact.

Originally Posted by Confucious

those who say they know nothing, know everything

To claim we even begin to understand animals is a flaw in and of itself. Unless we find some medium of communication between dog and man where both understand each other we cannot say we understand dogs anymore than what dogs can say they understand us. Our interpretations of their actions could be completely irrelevant to what the meaning of their actions actually is.

Originally Posted by una

This wasn't something my dog trainer told me, either way I'm happy to explain. This type of canine behaviour is observed in captivity and in the wild. Wolves use this type of dominant behaviour to establish heirachy in the pack. The alpha male will mount another male to establish dominance, sometimes they don't even mount from the back i.e ventro-ventral mount. Ventro-ventral mount of infant is not unheard of either. So where does the behaviour originate from? It it the product of a procedure of imitation or procedure of instinct or a procedure of intelligence. In domesticated dogs, puppies have been observed mounting and displaying other dominant behaviour towards their litter mates. A human leg has not much to sexually offer and as Philomel pointed out earlier on a female bitch would back up towards the owner instead of mounting the leg- awkward mounting is an observable behaviour in wolf packs as I previously mentioned.

You keep asserting that this is all dominance play. But do you have absolute proof? Can you say without a doubt that just because a wolf humps another wolf it is asserting dominance? Or is that just a human understanding of what humans think is going on....for all you know they could be communicating "Lets go ambush that stupid human who is watching us." It could also just be an insult. Kind of like tee-bagging but wolfy style. Who are we to say what animal intentions there are. Just because a bunch of people watch an organism for days, weeks, months, years, does not mean anything as the watcher is not the actual organism and thus can only make observational guesses that may be completely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by una

Informed consent is not some independent state of truth that is unaffected by the passage of time. Knowledge changes. I'm not going to condemn an entire population of people to a life of celibacy because they were ignorant of the 21st century knowledge base. That is ridiculous. If the knowledge existed then they would know-why because they are capable of learning. Animals on the other hand have access to our modern day knowledge but lack the intelligence to comprehend it. That is the major difference.

How do you know animals lack the intelligence to interpret our actions and intentions? How can you say that without a doubt? Are you that fully enveloped in a human superiority complex that you see all other animals as incompetent, unintelligent life forms that have no possibility of being smarter...if not equal to that of a human being? If so, I ask why. Do you have proof that animals do not interpret actions, do not understand human actions? Do you have proof that animals cannot, without a doubt, understand humans? I will further assert my point by quoting you:

Originally Posted by Una

Knowledge changes. I'm not going to condemn an entire population of people to a life of celibacy because they were ignorant of the 21st century knowledge base. That is ridiculous.

So you are going to condemn a population of humans in the 21st century because of our "possible" ignorance in the understanding and intelligence of animals? What if in the future, we humans, in all of our glorified intelligence, find out that all these animals do understand us and have always understood us? Would you then feel justified in having condemned human beings who identified more with animals than humans and thus preferred the company of an animal to a human because of your lack of knowledge at that time?

Originally Posted by Una

I never placed human standards above all else. Just because I said human intelligence is higher than animal intelligence, does not translate they are more superior. Human standards are subjective- I can't pretend that there is one universal set of standards every human adheres to. Some folk might be quite happy to bound and muzzle an animal to rape it. Does that make it okay? Some might argue that the animal is their property. I already said this is debate about ethics, you can't hide away from that Tutela. With out ethics and morals there is no such concepts as rights and wrongs. What you and Inertia are asking of the thread is to provide an argument against bestiality absent of moral and ethics. That is impossible. There is always going to be some element of moral and ethical reasoning because if starts with a belief. My belief is that animal abuse is wrong. I can't logically justify my belief because of it's subjective nature but I can explain how my argument against bestiality arrives at that conclusion for me to deem it as wrong.

You have, and continue to advocate human standards above all else. To assume blindly that animals cannot understand us without having been an animal yourself is ludicrous. My points are also ethical, and more important since we value human rights over animal rights in all of our glorious superiority. If specific human beings identify more with animals, what gives you the right to stop them from executing actions based on what they believe themselves or see themselves to be? Just as a homosexual cannot help identifying with other males. A Bestial person cannot help but identify with other animals. What gives you the right to infringe on their happiness.

Examples of where Human Lives and Rights are more Important than animals.


1. Hunting-Sacrifice animal life for human survival and/or happiness
2. Castration-Cut off reproductive organs for human happiness
3. Pesticide/Traps-Killing animals for human happiness
4. Domestication-Taking away animal happiness for human happiness

An animal does not have the mental capacity to comprehend the nature of human morality, so it doesn't even have the choice to make such a decision.

Undenyable Proof please.

What makes you think that we have to make that decision for them?

I'm not, I'm advocating let the animal decide for itself.

Ah I fell behind! Did I miss anything important? ._.

Originally Posted by CiaoPinkZebra

Ah I fell behind! Did I miss anything important? ._.

Not at all

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

To claim we even begin to understand animals is a flaw in and of itself. Unless we find some medium of communication between dog and man where both understand each other we cannot say we understand dogs anymore than what dogs can say they understand us. Our interpretations of their actions could be completely irrelevant to what the meaning of their actions actually is.

I never made that claim I said- "They gather an indefinite number of facts and try to make generalizations out of them to explain the origin of their behaviour." So for example a Californian sea otter is observed to bring up a small rock in one hand when they have caught a mussel. Floating on their backs they lay the mussel down on their chest and hold the stone between their paws then hit the mussel with the rock until the mussel breaks open. One otter over a period of 1 hour and 26 mins was observed catching 54 mussels and delivered a total 2237 bang to open all these mussels, (Hall, Schaller, 1963). We can't prove that the otter is using a tool to open the mussel so he can eat to the point of absolute truth. But we can use it as evidence towards that idea. Seriously though if you want to take this argument to the point of interpreting reality through absolute truths I could argue if the otters had the ability to communicate there exists a possibility they might lie therefore making the their testaments defunct. You can even take it too the point of denying reality and opting for a matrix/ dream world.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

You keep asserting that this is all dominance play. But do you have absolute proof? Can you say without a doubt that just because a wolf humps another wolf it is asserting dominance? Or is that just a human understanding of what humans think is going on....for all you know they could be communicating "Lets go ambush that stupid human who is watching us." It could also just be an insult. Kind of like tee-bagging but wolfy style. Who are we to say what animal intentions there are. Just because a bunch of people watch an organism for days, weeks, months, years, does not mean anything as the watcher is not the actual organism and thus can only make observational guesses that may be completely irrelevant.

I haven't got absolute proof that those people really did observe wolves in the wild. I can reference the studies and even show you clips on youtube but it all could be fake. If you are going to hide behind absolute proof then there is nothing for any of us to discuss.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

How do you know animals lack the intelligence to interpret our actions and intentions? How can you say that without a doubt? Are you that fully enveloped in a human superiority complex that you see all other animals as incompetent, unintelligent life forms that have no possibility of being smarter...if not equal to that of a human being? If so, I ask why. Do you have proof that animals do not interpret actions, do not understand human actions? Do you have proof that animals cannot, without a doubt, understand humans? I will further assert my point by quoting you:

I did not say that either! I said that they lack the intelligence to comprehend human morality- when was the last time you tried to communicate your feelings about third world debt through body language or any other moral dilemma.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

So you are going to condemn a population of humans in the 21st century because of our "possible" ignorance in the understanding and intelligence of animals? What if in the future, we humans, in all of our glorified intelligence, find out that all these animals do understand us and have always understood us? Would you then feel justified in having condemned human beings who identified more with animals than humans and thus preferred the company of an animal to a human because of your lack of knowledge at that time?

You've just spent the last a couple of posts saying we know nothing without absolute truth. Then suddenly understanding animal behaviour is a possibility because some zoophiles thinks they understand an animal and that animal may understand them, not to degree of absolute truth but we are going to gloss over that. As I said before some behaviour is the product of instinctual procedure so does that mean an animal wants sex.
What do you mean condemn? That was serious lulz- oh noes pplz are going to miss out on a shag- the huge manatee! If that does happen I hope I am on par with the genocidal tin pot dictators of the world ;)

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

You have, and continue to advocate human standards above all else. To assume blindly that animals cannot understand us without having been an animal yourself is ludicrous. My points are also ethical, and more important since we value human rights over animal rights in all of our glorious superiority. If specific human beings identify more with animals, what gives you the right to stop them from executing actions based on what they believe themselves or see themselves to be? Just as a homosexual cannot help identifying with other males. A Bestial person cannot help but identify with other animals. What gives you the right to infringe on their happiness.

I never said animals can't understand us. I said they cannot comprehend our complex ideas about morality. There are degrees of understanding. There is evidence that a dog can understand human facial expressions but we can not conclude from this that they are capable of understanding concepts such as Christianity. You talk of ideas of human superiority yet are championing fallible human judgement to interpret the origins of a behaviour.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Examples of where Human Lives and Rights are more Important than animals.


1. Hunting-Sacrifice animal life for human survival and/or happiness
2. Castration-Cut off reproductive organs for human happiness
3. Pesticide/Traps-Killing animals for human happiness
4. Domestication-Taking away animal happiness for human happiness

Your making the same fallacy as I pointed out before, human standards are subjective. For example:

1- I'm anti-hunting.
2- I had one of my dog castrated because his testes did not drop. My second dog I had to castrate as it was a legal requirement when I signed his adoption paper- he was a rescue. But my other dog I did not castrate. On the two occasions I had my dogs castrated I felt no sense of euphoria, probably because of the huge vet bill.
3- I only eat organic and I'm against the use of chemical pesticides. The only traps I use to catch animals is rat traps, the kind that don't kill the animal.
4- Prove that domestication induces clinical depression.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Undyniable Proof please.

I can give evidence but not undeniable proof. This would be a bit of a mini essay on brain structure and development across species of animals and reptilians. I'm quite happy to write it but there wouldn't be much point if you wanted absolute truth.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

I'm not, I'm advocating let the animal decide for itself.

By letting humans make judgements on where the animal behaviour originates from.

@Inertia- I did address point 2 in this post:

Because there are people who exist in the world that observe animal behaviour. They gather an indefinite number of facts and try to make generalizations out of them to explain the origin of their behaviour. So to say we know nothing about animal behaviour when there is a body of studies in existence that attempt to explain behaviour through various approaches, is silly. There is so many different studies and approaches I can't commit to saying that they are all good or all bad. There are no absolute truths we can only make approximations. You yourself used Frisch, Tinbergen, and Lorenz to demonstrate how bees communicate, so there must be some part of the ethological knowledge base you consider credible enough to assert as fact.

An appeal to authority would have been- statement x is true because person x is an authority. As you can see from the underline I'm not making that assertion. So if you want to pursue this line of argument you would need to prove that I said all animal behaviourists are infallible which I haven't.